D2x gets glowing review - "...arguably the best camera eve..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

http/www.bythom.com/d2xreview.htm

Compares directly to 1Ds Mark II - and possible has greater resolution
from greater sensor density.

I use Canon personally, but I have to respect a great tool. I wonder
what Canon's answer will be?


--

J

www.urbanvoyeur.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"UrbanVoyeur" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4278F994.90102@nospam.net...
>
> http/www.bythom.com/d2xreview.htm
>
> Compares directly to 1Ds Mark II - and possible has greater resolution
> from greater sensor density.
>
> I use Canon personally, but I have to respect a great tool. I wonder what
> Canon's answer will be?
>

This scenario is typical Nikon. If you are willing to wait, Nikon tends to
come out with what can arguably be a superior product. After seeing Thom's
sample photos, I would have to say that he may be correct in thinking that
12mp may be all we need in this format.

The idea is that both Canon and Nikon will continue to drive each other to
perfection. No need to switch. Just wait a bit.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"UrbanVoyeur" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4278F994.90102@nospam.net...
>
> http/www.bythom.com/d2xreview.htm
>
> Compares directly to 1Ds Mark II - and possible has greater resolution
> from greater sensor density.
>
> I use Canon personally, but I have to respect a great tool. I wonder what
> Canon's answer will be?
>
>
> --
>
> J
>
> www.urbanvoyeur.com

Uh, oh. Be careful, Steven's going to slam you!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 04 May 2005 16:34:26 GMT, UrbanVoyeur <nospam@nospam.net>
wrote:

>
>http/www.bythom.com/d2xreview.htm
>
>Compares directly to 1Ds Mark II - and possible has greater resolution
>from greater sensor density.
>
>I use Canon personally, but I have to respect a great tool. I wonder
>what Canon's answer will be?

Well, the knocking down of the pixel count/area to speed up
capture and frame rates (8ps) was a suggestion made ages ago
when people wondered why they had a 4 megapixel pro camera at
all. What exactly is the "H" for nowadays and why, if the sensor
is the expensive part of camera does the H still cost what it does??

And as a side issue, why must most cameras "bin" pixels when
resolution or "quality" is reduced? They combine pixels to
cut the resolution which results in larger pixels. Since resolution
is being reduced, why not simply use the pixels in the centre of the
sensor? This would achieve the same objective as "binning" and would
allow lenses to "become" different focal lengths. They would increase
in focal length. So, (as a rough example) you're 8 megapixel camera
with it's 50-200mm lens could become at the push of a button a 4
megapixel camera with a 100-400mm lens, without changing lenses.
What Nikon has done by allowing this reduction in true pixel count is
smart, it's bought them speed and focal length flexibility.
-Rich

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Sheldon wrote:
> "UrbanVoyeur" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:4278F994.90102@nospam.net...
>
>>http/www.bythom.com/d2xreview.htm
>>
>>Compares directly to 1Ds Mark II - and possible has greater resolution
>>from greater sensor density.
>>
>>I use Canon personally, but I have to respect a great tool. I wonder what
>>Canon's answer will be?
>>
>
>
> This scenario is typical Nikon. If you are willing to wait, Nikon tends to
> come out with what can arguably be a superior product. After seeing Thom's
> sample photos, I would have to say that he may be correct in thinking that
> 12mp may be all we need in this format.

Great camera though the D2X may be, I'm not prepared to say that 12 MP
are all the pixels we need in this format. Or 16 for that matter.

I think its way too early in the game.

--

J

www.urbanvoyeur.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"UrbanVoyeur" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4278F994.90102@nospam.net...
>
> http/www.bythom.com/d2xreview.htm
>
> Compares directly to 1Ds Mark II - and possible has greater resolution
> from greater sensor density.

British Journal of Photography drew the same conclusion.

Perhaps a larger sensor area makes the sensor techs lazier? Not that this is
a bad thing- I mean, i'm sure 50mm lenses are often amongst the sharpest
because they are the simplest to design.

Anyway, at this level, surely this is all hair-splitting...

Martin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <2lii71d7nca2gd33s8dg38haiekqk5s25t@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>And as a side issue, why must most cameras "bin" pixels when
>resolution or "quality" is reduced? They combine pixels to
>cut the resolution which results in larger pixels. Since resolution
>is being reduced, why not simply use the pixels in the centre of the
>sensor? This would achieve the same objective as "binning" and would
>allow lenses to "become" different focal lengths. They would increase
>in focal length. So, (as a rough example) you're 8 megapixel camera
>with it's 50-200mm lens could become at the push of a button a 4
>megapixel camera with a 100-400mm lens, without changing lenses.

That would be a 2-megapixel camera, not a 4-megapixel camera.

One objection would be that the viewfinder shows an image
corresponding to the full area of the sensor.

If you only want the central portion of the image, nothing is
stopping you from cropping to that 2-megapixel image, anyway.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John Francis <johnf@panix.com> wrote:

> One objection would be that the viewfinder shows an image
> corresponding to the full area of the sensor.
>
> If you only want the central portion of the image, nothing is
> stopping you from cropping to that 2-megapixel image, anyway.

Right. The (minor) advantages of doing it in-camera are that you can
accurately compose the picture (using the smaller frame in the viewfinder);
you get a faster frame rate; and you get smaller files. The first one
would be the main one for me. But I doubt I'll ever use "high speed
crop" mode.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <8s2dnSdbK5j-heTfRVn-3A@comcast.com>,
Sheldon <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>After seeing Thom's
>sample photos, I would have to say that he may be correct in thinking that
>12mp may be all we need in this format.

Why no build a 27 Mpixel full frame version with this technology?

After all, the sensor in the D2X is 'only' 88 lp/mm.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency